The Development and Correlates of Field-Specific Ability Beliefs About Math and Reading Among Singaporean Children

• In Event: New Perspectives on the STEM Gender Disparities: Children’s Interlocking Beliefs about Fields and Social Groups

Abstract

Many people believe that being good at math requires brilliance—exceptional intellectual ability (e.g., Heyder et al., 2020). These common field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) may discourage some children—especially those from social groups that are stereotyped as lacking this intellectual quality, such as girls and women— from pursuing math-intensive fields (Leslie, Cimpian, et al., 2015). Given their potential consequences, understanding how FABs about math develop is an important task for developmental science. However, research on the development of these beliefs is scarce, and little is known about their early links to children’s math outcomes (Gunderson et al., 2017).

The present research addressed these open questions. Using a large sample of Singaporean children between 6 and 16 years of age, we examined the age trajectory and correlates of FABs about math and (as a comparison) reading, testing the hypotheses that 1) older children’s FABs would differentiate more strongly between math and reading, and 2) children’s FABs about math would be negatively associated with their math outcomes. Furthermore, in light of the gender-brilliance stereotype that ascribes brilliance to men but not women (Zhao et al., 2022), we also explored 3) whether girls’ math outcomes had more negative associations with FABs about math than boys’.

Participants were 1554 Singaporean children (Ngirls = 734, Mage = 10.56 years, 80% Chinese, 10% Indians, 3% Malays, 6% others). They reported FABs about math and, separately, reading (Table 1). Children also answered questions about their math self-efficacy and interest.

A mixed-effects model was carried out to test whether children’s FABs differentiated between math and reading, and whether such differentiation became more apparent with age. Results suggested that children endorsed more brilliance-oriented FABs about math (M = 2.09, SE = 0.02) compared to reading (M = 1.82, SE = 0.02), B = 0.27, p < .001. As hypothesized, an interaction between child age and field (i.e., math vs. reading) emerged, B = 0.02, p = .007. Older children’s FABs more strongly differentiated between math and reading, suggesting that with age, children tended to perceive math (vs. reading) as emphasizing brilliance (Figure 1). It is also noteworthy, however, that children’s FABs were overall less brilliance-oriented with age, B = −0.14, p < .001. Older children were less likely to report that success in either math or reading requires being “super smart.”

Next, we tested the associations between children’s FABs and math outcomes. Consistent with our predictions, children’s math self-efficacy, B = −0.08, p < .001, and math interest, B = −0.09, p = .003, were negatively related to their FABs about math. Moreover, these negative associations were particularly pronounced among older girls, hinting at the possibility that the math FAB may disproportionately suppress girls’ math outcomes as they grow older.

The present study revealed the age trajectory of children’s FABs about math and reading across elementary and middle school years. The negative associations between children’s math FABs and math outcomes constitute preliminary evidence that this belief may deter children, and girls in particular, from participating in math-intensive fields.

Authors

• Siqi Zhao, New York University
  Presenting Author

• Andrei Cimpian, New York University

• Peipei Setoh, Nanyang Technological University